6.4. TEACHERS, THE COMMUNITY, AND THE TONGUE (4:11–12)

11Do not speak360 evila against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever361 speaks evila against another or362 judges another, speaks evila against the law and judges the law; but ifb you judge the law, you are not363 a doer of the lawc but a judge.d 12There is one lawgiver364 and judgee365 who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then,366 are you367 to judge your neighbor368?f

4:11–12 forms an inclusio with 3:1–2 in that both are preoccupied with speech ethics. This connection provides solid support for the view that the entire section from 3:1 to 4:12 is concerned with teachers, how they speak publicly, and how their poor leadership is destroying the fabric of the messianic community. Not all, however, agree with this summary explanation of the connection of 4:11–12 to what precedes.369 To be sure, James moves from disparate teachings about divisiveness in 4:1–6 to the summons to repent in 4:7–10, which could have been a climax to the whole section, and then to the theme of judgmental words in 4:11–12. The change in substance and theme at 4:11 is noticeable. But a cohesive reading of 3:1–4:12 leads one to think that verbal sins in the context of the messianic community have been the concern all along. One feature suggesting that 4:11–12 forms the final word on the topic of teachers, leadership, and speech patterns is the shift from distancing words (“adulteresses” in 4:4, “sinners” and “double-minded” in 4:8) to the reuse (from 3:1) of James’s favorite pastoral word of inclusion (“brothers [and sisters]”) in 4:11. 4:7–10 would have been too harsh an ending but 4:11–12 is not. Nonetheless, the shift from 4:10 to 4:11 is distinct.370 Davids’s suggestion, deriving as it does from his complicated but sophisticated source-critical approach to the letter, that 4:11–12 is a redactional conclusion, is possible. Methodologically I would counter with this observation: if a redactor could have thought of 4:11–12 as suitable to close 3:1–4:10, so also could have the author. Rather than seeing a more or less random exhortation in 4:11–12, it makes more sense to see here the completion of the exhortation about speech patterns, with the addition of a new idea—vaunting oneself as a lawgiver—that carries the polemic of 3:1–4:10 to an accusation at a new level, that of idolatry.

4:11–12 is organized as follows:

1. Prohibition (4:11a): “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters.”

2. Explanation of prohibition (4:11b–12a):

Statement (4:11b): “Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law.”

Clarification (4:11c): “but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.”

Foundation (4:12a): “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy.”

3. Concluding question (4:12b): “So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?”

The implicit answer to the concluding question is something like “You are not God; therefore, you should not be judging.” The question is damning because its answer is clear, and James has used this technique of argument by way of implied answer to questions before in 3:1–4:12, most notably at 3:11–12; 4:4a, 5. The same was found in the potent ch. 2 (2:7, 14–16, 20–21).

6.4.1. Prohibition (4:11a)

With “do not speak evil against one another” James gives living legs to the general words in 3:1: “Not many of you should become teachers.” It is because the teachers are using the tongue to speak evil against one another that that they should not be striving to teach. One of the more notable features of James’s rhetoric is his alternation between pastoral inclusiveness, whether with first person person plural (3:2, 9) or with “brothers [and sisters]” (3:1, 10), and a rhetorical distancing from his audience with the use of the second person (3:1, 13–16; 4:1–3) and harsh accusations (3:10, 14; 4:1, 4a, 7–10). He makes such a shift in 4:11–12: from harsh distancing language in 4:1–10, culminating in “adulteresses!” and “sinners” and “double-minded” (4:4a, 8b), to the pastoral “brothers and sisters”371 in 4:11. If James has been forced to throw pointed accusations at the teachers, his intent has not been to accuse or destroy but to warn and lead to repentance and restoration.

The first two Greek words of 4:11 establishes the theme of vv. 11 and 12: “do not speak evil.”372 The verb, katalaleō, could indicate a more general speech problem—speaking carelessly, foolishly, or the like—or a more particular problem—slanderous or libelous verbal assaults. There is good evidence for both views.

First, the term can be general: “slander.” Thus, Paul could speak of those who rebel against God as “slanderers, God-haters, insolent …” (Rom 1:30) and he feared that among the Corinthians there would be “slanderers” (2 Cor 12:20). Peter, too, lumped “slander” into a batch of sins (1 Pet 2:1). We also find it in lists in 1 Clement 30; 31; and 35:5; Ignatius, Philippians 2:2; 4:3; Barnabas 20:2; Hermas, Mandates 38.3 and Similitudes 92:3; 100:2. And it would be a rough equivalent for what we find in 1QS 4:9–11.373

Second, the term can be more particular, but this particularity moves only slightly, from “slander” to “libel.” One thinks here of Miriam and Aaron speaking against Moses (Num 12:1–8). The wilderness generation spoke against God (Ps 78:19). A crystal-clear example is Psalm 50:20 (see also 101:5):

You sit and speak against your kin;

you slander your own mother’s child.

Jesus knows his followers will experience what he has experienced, namely, opponents speaking falsely against them (Matt 5:11–12). Gentiles, Peter says, speak against those who follow Jesus (1 Pet 2:12; 3:16). The wisdom tradition warns of this sin: “Beware then of useless grumbling, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul” (Wis 1:11). The sense of the term here is speaking accusingly, falsely, degradingly, dishonorably, and with libelous or slanderous intent in order to label a person as dangerous or unworthy. This sense of “evil speaking” involves an act of judgment against or over another person, and this will become clear when James connects “evil speaking” in 4:11b with “judges.”374

This sketch of the term is of value to understanding both 4:11–12 and 3:1–4:12 as a whole because it clarifies what has been implicit from the beginning: the particular speech problem the teachers of the messianic community had was slander, libel, and denunciation of others. This fits with the passions that were at work among these leaders: zeal, ambition, cravings, desires, and yearnings toward envy.

It remains to ask who James might have in mind when he says “against one another,” and two options are open to us: he could be referring to slander of fellow teachers or of anyone in the messianic community. In context, the former makes the most sense.375

6.4.2. Explanation of Prohibition (4:11b–12a)

6.4.2.1. Statement (4:11b)

James now explains376 why they should not slander one another. He proceeds by repeating his words (“speaks evil”) and clarifying those words with “or judges.”377 He enters into a three-step explanation, and perhaps seeing where he is headed will help us understand. He connects “speaks evil” (katalalein) to “judges” (krinein) and then connects krinein to speaking evil (katalalein) against the Torah itself; in fact, the one who speaks against the Torah actually exalts himself378 to sit in judgment (krinein) on the Torah. The one who judges the Law is not under it as a doer but over it as a judge (4:11c). James identifies this as hubris of the highest order: God is the Lawgiver (4:12a), and this leads to James’s final accusing question (4:12b): “So who, then, are you?” or, we might say, “Who do you think you are?”

To judge a brother (or sister) is to usurp God’s role. Judging, and this is not recognized often enough, is different from discerning.379 To judge is to condemn and thus to take on a role that is reserved only for God. A good example is the Parable of the Wheat and Weeds, where the desire to uproot weeds is the desire to act in judgment. Jesus meets this with words of patient coexistence until God does the judging (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43). That parable turns what Jesus teaches in Matthew 7:1–5 into a graphic story. Luke 6:37 shows the important connection of “judge” with “condemn”: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” One common argument against judging in the sense of condemning is pragmatic: it turns back on the judging person (Matt 7:1–5; Rom 2:1). A more theological reason is given by Jesus (John 8:15–16), Paul (Rom 14:4; 1 Cor 4:5), and by James (2:12–13; 3:1; 5:9, 12): humans finally answer only to God and not to one another.

But this anticipates what is to come in 4:12. First James lays down the claim that the person who slanders or judges another person “speaks evil against the law and judges the law.” The logic of this statement is not obvious, nor does it follow that sitting in judgment on a brother or sister legitimately or appropriately is to slander or condemn the Torah. In order to make sense of this we must consider both the grammar of 4:11b and the substance of 4:11c–12a. The subject of “speaks evil against the law and judges the law” is a complex clause:

subject clause	verb and object
Whoever speaks evil against another	speaks evil against the law
or	and
judges another	judges the law.

It is thus the slandering damner who runs afoul of James’s words. Such a person is actually slandering and judging the Torah because he has usurped the role of God in the act of condemnation and has chosen to defy what God has said not to do.380 In this way, the slandering damner defies God and transfers authority from God’s Torah to himself.381 So, 4:11b’s words make sense only by assuming what is about to be said in 4:11c and 4:12a: that judgment belongs to God alone.

But one question about 4:11b remains: is “the law” the Torah in general, or is James thinking of one particular mitzvah, one command? The language could be general, but “neighbor” at the end of 4:12 might indicate that James has Leviticus 19:18 in mind.382 James has used this term already (2:8), and there are other indicators that Jesus’ reformulated version of the Shema was central to the ethics of James (1:12, 25a; 2:8–10). If one factors into this the ubiquitous importance of liturgical recitations of the Shema among Jews of the period, the evidence is sufficient for us to think that James has Leviticus 19:18 in mind, or at least the combination of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and Leviticus 19:18. The one who judges another puts himself or herself in the position of God and violates not only love of God but also love of one’s neighbor, which is the core of the Torah.383

6.4.2.2. Clarification (4:11c)

The rhetorical move from 4:11a to 4:11b assumed the substance of both 4:11c and 4:12a. What James has in mind with “if you judge the law” becomes clear with “you are not a doer of the law but a judge.” The fundamental imperative for Israel with respect to God’s Torah was to “do” (ʿaśâ, poiein) what God said.384 This was also what Jesus expected of his followers (Matt 7:21–28; 28:20). James walks the same path (1:22–25). We might call this fundamental stance one of being “under the Torah.” The teacher, however, who moves out from under the law and begins to see himself or herself “over the Torah” thus expresses hubris at the highest level. James’s conclusion is that “if you judge the law … you are a judge.” Whatever one thinks of his logic, the intent is clear and doubly expressed.

When James says such a person is a “judge” we must think not in terms of verbal slander of the Torah but, as 4:12a will make clear, sitting in the judge’s seat instead of among the Torah-observant citizenship. James’s point is where such a person—the slandering damner—locates himself with respect to others, and he will reveal that such a move is idolatrous. God, he says, is the Lawgiver and Judge; humans are “doers” of the Law, not makers of the Law.385

6.4.2.3. Foundation (4:12a)

Without punctuation James simply states his point: “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy.” This element of Israel’s story, that God is the lawgiver, is the theological foundation of everything James has said in 4:11. His logic is almost like moving forward by walking backward: as he progresses in his argument he has to keep backing up to provide the logical elements he is assuming. Thus, speaking evil entails judging; judging entails sitting over the Torah in judgment; sitting over the Torah entails no longer being a doer. Underneath all these entailments, each of which undergirds why it is wrong to sit in judgment on another, is the obvious but all-important point: God alone is the Lawgiver and Judge. To sit in judgment, then, is to be outside the Torah and above and beyond it. But that is space occupied by God and God alone.

A literal translation of 4:12a reminds one of the Shema: “One is the Lawgiver and Judge.”386 There is a reason why “one” is here and it deserves emphasis: in a world where humans were deified and other gods enthroned, Israel heard from on high that there was in fact only one God (Exod 3:14–15; 20:3; Deut 5:6–7; 6:4–9; Zech 14:9). What is expressed here is the uniqueness, unity, and exclusivity of Israel’s God.387 James’s words are potent: he has now pushed the teachers to the point where they are to see that their denunciatory rhetoric and their zeal, ambition, and envy have led them not to the top of the heap but to the gates of God’s throne room, where they are now hubristically demanding a seat on the throne. This One is both Lawgiver and Judge.388 The only use of the noun “Lawgiver” (nomothetēs) in the LXX subliminally works to defeat the zeal and ambition of the teachers in the book of James: Psalm 9:21 (9:20 in English versions) in the LXX reads “Put down, Lord, the legislator on them” with the implication that God is to activate the reality that he is the lawgiver and that the Gentiles are only human.389 Because God is creator, redeemer, lawgiver, and judge of all creation, God alone is the one who can “judge the law.”

James’s point has been made with the statement that the one God is Lawgiver and Judge, but the rhetoric of the passage must move from the theological indicative to the ecclesial, practical imperative and so James adds a rhetorical warning: “who is able to save and to destroy.”390 This statement, even though so general it hardly needs a fixed origin, could be from Jesus: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).391 The saying could also come from Deuteronomy 32:39:

See now that I, even I, am he;

there is no god beside me.

I kill and I make alive;

I wound and I heal;

and no one can deliver from my hand.392

Whether it comes from Jesus or from Moses the rhetorical function is the same: James hereby threatens the teachers with final judgment at the hand of the one God, who determines life and death.

6.4.3. Concluding Question (4:12b)

One is tempted to translate the last question of this verse with “Who in the world do you think you are?” The “you,” which is emphatic here,393 is defined: “you” is the one who judges, the one who stands over his neighbor in the way that God stands over all creation.394 Here James draws us into the Jesus Creed, the use of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the foundational ethical directive for each follower of Jesus (Mark 12:28–32). Instead of standing next to the neighbor in love, the teachers had assumed the position of God and were over the neighbor. This, I am suggesting, is where James has driven the teachers: their zeal, ambition, cravings, desires, and yearnings toward envy have driven them up the ladder to the point where they are now assuming the prerogative of the one God who is Lawgiver and Judge. Such is their hubris; such is their idolatry.

James abruptly finishes the theme of the teachers and the tongue. He moves on and we will follow him.

7. THE MESSIANIC COMMUNITY AND THE WEALTHY (4:13–5:11)

7.1. THE SIN OF PRESUMPTION (4:13–17)

13Come now,a you who say, “Today or1 tomorrow we will go2 to such and suchb a town and spend a3 year there, doing business and making money.” 14Yet you do not even know what4 tomorrow will bring.c5 What is your life? For you are6 a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wishes,d7 we will live and do8 this or that.” 16As it is, you boast in9 your arrogance;e10 all such boasting is evil. 17Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.f

The structure of James perplexes each of its serious readers.11 Without warning, but with undeniable indicators of interest in similar themes, James launches into strong words for merchants. We consider 4:13–5:6 (or 4:13–5:11) a new section in the letter,12 not because it is clear this is a new section but because it is unclear how it fits with 3:1–4:12.13 This next section connects to themes found in 1:9–11 and 2:5–7, but 2:5–7 did not appear to be addressed at all to business travelers, and to find the same in 1:9–11 is to import too much. Some have suggested that 4:13–5:6 develops friendship with the world, mentioned in 4:4, but we have already suggested that what James had in mind there was zeal and ambition for power with no thought there of wealth. Others, with more basis, connect 4:13–17 to the theme of arrogance in 4:1–6.14 If we connect 4:13–17 with 5:1–6 and see in both the same targeted audience, since 5:1–6 brings up oppression, we could find connections back to 2:5–7 and perhaps even to where the zeal and ambitions of the leaders were taking them in 3:1–4:12. To anticipate some of our conclusions below, in 5:7–11 James tells the community how to respond to the wealthy, whom James has excoriated in 4:13–5:6.15

The passage flows from a description of the problem, namely the sin of presumption (4:13), into James’s instruction (4:14–17). His instruction begins with the brevity of life (4:14), the alternative to presumption (4:15), the fundamental problem with presumption (4:16) and a final warning (4:17).16

7.1.1. Description of the Sin of Presumption (4:13)

James is fond of sudden, strong, attention-grabbing rhetoric. “Whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy” (1:2) and “Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up …” (1:9). “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works?” (2:14) or “Not many of you should become teachers” (3:1). So also in 4:13: “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money.’” Not only is the rhetoric arresting, but it is forceful enough to put his readers/listeners on their heels with his opening words: “Come now, you who say.”17

A question immediately presents itself: Are the ones “who say” messianists or not?18 In light of 1:10 (see the comments there), a case can be made that these traveling businesspersons are not messianists.19 The language of James about the wealthy indicates that he uses the term “rich” the way other Anawim did: that term represents the ungodly oppressors (see also 2:6–7). Furthermore, if we connect 4:13–17 to 5:1–6 and see the same audience, then an even stronger case can be made for the businesspersons of 4:13 not being messianists.20 Also, it is perhaps not without significance that James does not refer to his audience as “brothers and sisters” in 4:13–5:6.

But, the language of 4:13–17 convinces others that the travelers are messianists.21 To begin with, and perhaps not observed carefully enough, James is a Christian (1:1; 2:1) and thinks these folks will and should listen to him. That assumption might indicate that his audience is the messianic community and that these business travelers are part of that community. Furthermore, 4:15’s assumption that they should be consulting “the Lord,” which in light of 1:1; 2:1; 5:7–8, 10–11, 14–15, where “Lord” refers to Jesus Christ, suggests they are messianists. (We will contest this reading of 4:15 below.) Also, 4:16–17 assumes that James’s readers will agree with his understanding of both “arrogance” and “sin,” and these may well be Christian perceptions of both. Even if 4:16–17 does not indicate a messianic orientation, 4:15 does for many.22 In what follows we will suggest otherwise, but our commentary below will carry the responsibility for the argument.

The merchants’ claims are fourfold, and James puts them into the future tense to give them vitality and conviction, even while he exposes the shameless, impious presumption of these people: (1) “we will go,” (2) we will “spend a year,” (3) we will be “doing business,” and (4) we will be “making money.” First, time is under their control: they will do these things “today or tomorrow.”23 Second, location is also under their control: “we will go to such and such a town.”24 Third, the duration of their business dealings is in their hands: “spend a year there.”25 Fourth, their labors and profits are under their control: “doing business and making money.”26 What kind of business dealing took place is not specified, but it might have involved selling local products elsewhere—say grain, figs, wine, olives, or shoes—purchasing items elsewhere to import—say incense, spices, silk, rare woods, livestock, pottery, or baskets—establishing a business in another location, or hiring oneself out to such a business. Regardless, the Hellenization of the land of Israel led to increasing opportunities for business. The last term, “making money,” is the goal of James’s rhetoric: the merchants have it all mapped out, and the goal is financial profit. Gain is the goal of business (cf. Matt 25:16–17, 20, 22). But just as James is not against planning, so also he is not against profits. He uses this language of planning and profit to construct a scenario of arrogant presumption, not to cut into the very nature of human existence. In other words, 4:13 is not fully clear until 4:15–17.

A similar castigation of presumption can be seen in Jesus’ words: “what it will profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life?” (Matt 16:26). Paul, agreeing with both Jesus and James, turns the language on its head in Philippians 3:8: “More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” (see also 1:21; 3:7; Tit 1:11). James 4:16’s focus on pride clarifies the meaning of “today or tomorrow” as an expression of presumption.

These words and the disposition of merchants stand diametrically opposed to the stance of Jesus regarding time (Matt 6:11, 25–34). They also are against the wisdom tradition’s theme: “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps” (Prov 16:9) or “All our steps are ordered by the Lord; how then can we understand our own ways?” (20:24). The prophets, too, warn of presumption: “I know, O LORD, that the way of human beings is not in their control, that mortals as they walk cannot direct their steps” (Jer 10:23).27

7.1.2. James’s Instruction (4:14–17)

Now that he has sketched the sin of presumption on the part of merchants, James begins his instruction (4:14–17). First, the span of life is not in our control (4:14); second, instead of the merchant living under the providence and guidance of the Lord (4:15), he is living in arrogance (4:16). Finally, James offers a dual conclusion that simultaneously warns and exhorts (4:17).

7.1.2.1. The Brevity of Life (4:14)

The merchants presume upon God for travel, safety, business, and profits. James counters their presumption with a stern reminder of the brevity of life, a reminder that evokes what he said in 1:9–11. Rhetorically James opens up with a word that leads to a suddenly incomplete thought, but the translations struggle to make it clear and readable English. The NRSV reads “Yet” and the TNIV “Why.” The Greek sentence, however, begins with the indefinite personal pronoun (masculine) “whoever.”28 But a verb does not follow—instead, James moves to “you do not even know what tomorrow will bring.” One might translate, “I don’t care who you are” or “Whoever you might be, it doesn’t matter …” because “you do not even know.…” C. F. D. Moule suggested the “whoever” functions here as a mild adversative: “whereas actually.”29

The merchants, in spite of their presumption, “do not even know what tomorrow will bring.” This translation is clear and is probably an accurate rendering of the Greek, but the Greek itself is messy. It begins with “you do not even know,” and this is the clear part. The verb is one of mental apprehension (epistamai, related to our word “epistemology”).30 Abraham trusted God “not knowing where he was going” (Heb 11:8), but the presumptuous merchants were not trusting God and still thought they knew where they were going, what they would do, and that they would profit. The grammar next becomes elliptical, and it is even possible that we are to read two clauses together: “You do not even know what your life will be tomorrow.” But, because so many early manuscripts add a “for” between “will bring” and “What is your life?” and because this early instinctual reading of the text functions at least as commentary, it is most likely that “What is your life?” is a separate sentence. That means we have to deal with “You do not even know what tomorrow will bring.” And the problem here is the Greek:

to	tēs	aurion
that	of	tomorrow

The “that” is an article that appears to be the object of “know,”31 but the “of” (tēs, the feminine genitive article) sends us looking for a feminine noun, and one is not to be found. So, we are left to infer the word “day” (hēmeras), leaving us with “you do not even know that, or what [will occur] on the day on the morrow.” The ambiguity of this English translation matches the ambiguity of the Greek. The wisdom tradition routinely reflected on the transitoriness of life in terms not unlike James (cf. Wis 2:1–9).32 James’s saying is rooted in Proverbs 27:1, which in some ways clears up our verse: “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring.”33 Jesus, too, made a similar statement (Matt 6:34). It seems safe to conclude that James asserts the brevity of life by asserting the merchants’ ignorance even of what will happen tomorrow, let alone what they think will happen in their business accomplishments over the next year.

James now restates his point, perhaps knowing that some of his readers will have been confused by his ellipsis: “What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” The question deals with the merchants’ ignorance of what kind34 of life they may have: is it a long life? a profitable life? They do not know. Why? Because the life of a human being is “a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.”35 Once again, James’s focus is the transitoriness of life and he draws on a stock image—a mist or vapor36 in the sky that under the heat of the day dissipates and disappears.37 When Abraham looked down the plain toward Sodom he saw a dense smoke, like “smoke [LXX atmis] from a furnace” (Gen 19:28). The sacrificial incense gave off a “smoke [atmis]” (Lev 16:13). But we are closer to James’s sense of transitoriness with Hosea 13:3:

Therefore they will be like the morning mist,

like the early dew that disappears,

like chaff swirling from a threshing floor,

like smoke escaping through a window.

And Wisdom 2:4–5:

Our name will be forgotten in time,

and no one will remember our works;

our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,

and be scattered like mist

that is chased by the rays of the sun

and overcome by its heat.

For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow,

and there is no return from our death,

because it is sealed up and no one turns back.

Acts 2:19 refers to portents in the sky, one of which is “smoky mist.”38 Agrarian cultures watch the weather, and few things are as noticeable as vaporous clouds that bring no rain. These puffs of mist appear for awhile and then disappear.

7.1.2.2. Providence or Presumption (4:15–16)

4:15 Even more than the pragmatic argument that life is short (4:14) is the argument that God is sovereign, that all of life is in God’s hands, and that genuine piety looks to God’s guidance even for business pursuits.39 In direct contrast40 to the merchants’ presumptuous planning, James has an alternative plan: “Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that.’” This is the standard interpretation, and I am unpersuaded that it is accurate, though one would be rash to think any solution will be compelling. To begin with, the Greek text—literally rendered—omits “ought” and simply has “Instead of your saying.” It makes a significant difference if 4:15 is construed as direct, positive instruction—“you ought to be saying, ‘If the Lord wills …’”—or as counter-instruction—“instead of your saying ‘If the Lord wills.…’”

Once one renders the opening clause “instead of your saying,” I suggest one can convert 4:15 and 4:16 into two legs of a tandem statement:

Instead of your saying, “If the Lord wills, we will live and … ,”

you are now boasting.…

In this rendering James is relentlessly critical: he describes the sin of presumption in 4:13, he criticizes that presumption by reminding his readers of the brevity of life in 4:14, and the impact of 4:15–16 then is that they are filled with arrogant boasts. While not impossible, the suggestion that 4:15 is a momentary reprieve from the critique is less likely than a consistent listing of the problems James has with the merchants that this alternate reading suggests. What I have observed is that most commentators, after suggesting that 4:15 completes 4:13 and therefore leaving 4:16 as a point on its own, interpret 4:15 with 4:16.41

That God is sovereign characterizes Israel’s faith even if, as Josephus’s famous passages on the differences among the Jewish parties, there was the common struggle to make sense of both human choice and divine providence.42 Perhaps the later rabbinic statement represents most of Judaism: “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is given” (m Avot 3.15). James’s aim, however, is not to speculate about how choice and providence are to be explained. His point is the attitude, disposition, and presumption of the merchants. The merchants were presumptuous when they should have been more reverential and humble about their plans. Thus, these words express what was not in fact their orientation: “If the Lord43 wishes, we will live and do this or that.”44 This reminds one of Proverbs 19:21: “The human mind may devise many plans, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established.” But this wisdom saying contrasts God with humans while James goes beyond the contrast to dependency. James is closer to 1QS 11:10–11:

Surely a man’s way is not his own; neither can any person firm his own step. Surely justification is of God; by His power is the way made perfect. All that shall be, He foreknows, all that is, His plans establish; apart from Him is nothing done.

Even if Jews did not knock on wood and utter deo volente45 as the Romans did or speak of God’s will as the Greeks did,46 it boggles the mind that Sophie Laws can conclude that James’s line is the “commendation of a pious phrase of undeniably heathen origins.”47 Furthermore, James here advocates what is patently an early Christian theme and disposition, whether the terms are present or not. There ought to be contingency in all plans. It begins with the Lord’s prayer (Matt 6:10), and Paul famously expresses himself in these terms, especially when speaking of travel plans: “But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power” (1 Cor 4:19) and “I do not want to see you now just in passing, for I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits” (16:7; cf. Rom 1:10; Phil 2:19, 24). The author of Acts depicted Paul in similar terms: “but on taking leave of them, he said, ‘I will return to you, if God wills.’ Then he set sail from Ephesus” (Acts 18:21).48 That James moves from the summative dependence on the Lord’s will to “will live” points to God as creator and sustainer of all of life. Even the indeterminacy of “do this or that” evokes dependence on the Lord’s will.

4:16 Instead of an orientation in life that looks to God and depends on God, the merchants are presumptuous; their sin is hubris. In fact, James says to them directly, “As it is, you boast in your arrogance.”49 The contrast50 here is between what their orientation should be and what in fact it is. The fundamental problem here is their “arrogance” (alazoneia).51 A sterling example of arrogance was Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom 2 Maccabees 9:8 says, “Thus he who only a little while before had thought in his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea, and had imagined that he could weigh the high mountains in a balance, was brought down to earth and carried in a litter, making the power of God manifest to all.”52 There are even more resemblances in Wisdom 5:1–10, which not only suggests that the merchants are not messianists but that also contrasts the unrighteous with the righteous. On that day, the unrighteous oppressors will say of the righteous,

We took our fill of the paths of lawlessness and destruction,

and we journeyed through trackless deserts,

but the way of the Lord we have not known.

What has our arrogance profited us?

And what good has our boasted wealth brought us?

(Wis 5:7–8; cf. 17:7)

The merchants are arrogant in that they think their time, the locations to which they can go, their business activities, and their profits are all under their control. None of this occurs out of respect for the providence of God and the need to depend on God for life and direction.

Emerging from the merchants’ arrogance is boasting.53 James shares the radical upside-down world of Paul, who boasts in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:13–14), in that the poor, humble believer is to boast in his or her own impoverishment (Jas 1:9). But this is not the pattern of the merchants, who, like the rich person of 1:10, needs to learn to boast, not in his or her own accomplishments or plans but about being connected to the Lord of glory, who suffered and identified with the poor and suffering. The merchants’ boasting was both verbal (cf. 3:5) and behavioral (4:13).54

James says such boasting is “evil”55 but he will quickly combine this sentence to another in which the word “sin” (hamartia) will be used. It is wise to interpret them together. It is easier to move from the heart of all sins in pride, as so many moralists and theologians have done and continue to do,56 than it is to read James from the bottom up. For James, the sin involved here is a merchants’ sin, the sin of presumptuous planning and arrogant confidence that they can control life and profits. Simultaneously, this arrogance ignores the all-too-common reminder that life is short and that God is in control of all.

7.1.2.3. Conclusion (4:17)

As was the case at the end of 3:1–4:12, this conclusion lacks potent closure. James has, however, made his point: he has accused the merchants of presumption and arrogance. He now reminds them of something they already know but are not following: “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin” (4:17).57 A logical inference is drawn with the word “then” (oun). If the logical inference is retrospective, it is drawn from what James said at the end of 4:16: “such boasting is evil.” In this case the logical move looks like this: “since boasting is sin, therefore, anyone who knows that and does it anyway is a sinner.” If the inference is prospective, it is drawn from the substance of 4:17. In that case, James would be pointing to the truthfulness of some proverb58 or to his own formulation of a truth.59 James has already clinched his point with an apparent maxim (2:13; 3:18), and often enough it has become a line that Christians memorize. Some would argue that oun here assumes a connection between James and his audience that can only be explained if the audience is messianic. But, a close look at either 4:16 or 4:17 does not reveal anything specifically messianic or Christian. In fact, 4:17 operates at the level of a universal human conscience.

There are three parts to this conclusion: the person, the action, and the consequences. The person is “Anyone60 who knows the right thing to do.” The emphasis in this verse is on the person who knows what is right.61 One thinks of this in many connections, but one that might come to mind is Luke 12:47: “That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.” Something similar, but hardly the same, is in Romans 14:23: “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” And the LXX of Deuteronomy 23:22 also comes to mind: “But if you refrain from vowing, you will not incur guilt” or “it will not be sin to you.”62 If James’s language is thoroughly Jewish, he nevertheless has his own take: “who knows the right thing to do.” In thinking about “the right thing” (Greek, kalos) in the book of James63 one could return to passages like 1:21–27, where we become aware of those who hear and those who do, or to 2:14–17 where one becomes aware of needs and does not properly respond; one could also appeal to the verbal sins of 3:1–4:12. Or one could also think of Paul’s line in Galatians 6:9: “So let us not grow weary in doing what is right [kalos].” Or of Peter’s use of “doing good” (1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17). Wide nets have their place, especially moral ones, but this is not that place. James is fishing here for one kind of person and one kind of sin: his concern is the merchant and the sin is arrogant presumption. The opposite is trust in God and humility before God, especially with regard to one’s orientation to business planning. That is the “good” on James’s mind, and this good the merchants know.

The supposed action of the merchants, inferred as it is from their behaviors in 4:13, comes next: “and fails to do it.”64 More narrowly, then, James is speaking of the merchant who knows God’s providence and care, his own finitude, and his need to trust in God, but does not act on the basis of that knowledge. For such a person, that disregard of God in financial planning is sinful. James speaks of sin emerging from desire (1:15), of sin as partiality (2:9), and of sins being confessed and forgiven (5:15–16, 20). But here he envisions the sin of presumption and of knowledgeable and culpable disregard of God in business pursuits.

7.2. THE SIN OF OPPRESSION (5:1–6)

1Come now,a you rich people, weep and wail for the miseriesb that are coming toc you.65 2Your richesd have rotted,66 and your clothes are moth-eaten.e 3Your gold and silver have rusted,f and their rust will be evidence against you, and it67 will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasureg forh the68 last days. 4Listen!i The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud,j cry out,k and the cries of the harvesters have reached69 the ears of the Lord of hosts.l 5You have lived on the earth in luxury and70 in pleasure;m you have fattened your heartsn in71 a day of slaughter. 6You have condemned and murdered the righteouso one, who does not resist you.p

The opening “Come now” is identical to the opening of 4:13, drawing these two paragraphs into a formal connection. Both passages also follow with a subject: “You who say” in 4:13 and “You rich people” in 5:1. Formal similarities end there, but all commentators on this text recognize the thematic connection of wealth. The prevailing question is whether the audience of 4:13–17 is drawn from the same pool of people as 5:1–6, even if one of them is a group of rich traveling merchants and the other a group of rich farmers.72 One cannot know with certainty, but we will attempt to make a case that they are the same audience, the wealthy, in our note on 5:1, and that case will entail the conclusion that neither passage is directed to the messianic community. If it has not been obvious already in this letter, it becomes obvious in 4:13–5:6 that James’s stance toward his audience, a Jewish audience, borders on that of a prophet of old. We emphasize that we cannot be certain, but the evidence strikes us as the words of an apostolic-like prophet who is concerned with the community, messianist or not, as much as with the local ecclesia. A structural question, which we cannot answer in full until our comments on 5:7–11, is how 4:13–5:6 fits with that passage. To anticipate a conclusion below, 5:7–11 makes most sense understood as relating how James thinks the messianic community ought to respond to the presumptuous arrogance and oppressive actions of the wealthy.

A word about the tone of these verses, and this also speaks to the tone of 4:13–17. In brief, it is relentless accusation and warning, and reminds one not only of the prophets’ warnings against powerful, abusive Israelites as well as against the nations (Amos 7:10–17; Isa 3:11–4:1; 5; 13–27; 33–35; Jer 20:1–6; and Amos 4:1–3; 6:1–7; Hos 2:5–7; Isa 8:6–8; 30:12–14; Mic 3:1–4)73 but also of variations on those prophetic oracles of doom in texts like 1 Enoch 94–97; Luke 6:24–26; and Matthew 23. For example, from 1 Enoch:

Woe unto you, O rich people!

For you have put your trust in your wealth.…

In the days of your affluence, you committed oppression,

you have become ready for death, and for the day of darkness and the day of great judgment (94:8, 9).

Judgment will catch up with you, sinners.

You righteous ones, fear not the sinners! (95:2–3)

Woe unto you, sinners, for you persecute the righteous (95:7).

Be hopeful, you righteous ones, for the sinners shall soon perish from before your presence (96:1).

Woe unto you who eat the best bread!

And drink wine in large bowls,

trampling upon the weak people with your might (96:5).

What do you intend to do, you sinners,

whither will you flee on that day of judgment,

when you hear the sound of the prayer of the righteous ones? (97:3)

In those days, the prayers of the righteous ones shall reach unto the Lord (97:5).

Woe unto you who gain silver and gold by unjust means …

For your wealth shall not endure

but it shall take off from you quickly

for you have acquired it all unjustly,

and you shall be given over to a great curse (97:8, 10).

James’s approach is strikingly similar. We find the address in second person, as if the prophet or apocalyptist is talking directly to the rich; a concern with unjust wealth accumulation; a clear, known boundary between the wicked and the righteous; and a threat of judgment on the sinners and vindication for the righteous. James does not dwell in the apocalyptic world as much as 1 Enoch, but he feeds at the wells of the prophetic-apocalyptic milieu of Judaism.74 His tone is, then, both prophetic and apocalyptic, but probably more the former than the latter.75

The prophetic rhetoric of 5:1–6 unfolds as follows:76 First we have an opening warning (5:1) that is followed by a staccato-like series of statements that describe the accumulative lifestyle and its impermanence (5:2–3). Second, v. 4 is almost parenthetical and rhetorically functions as sidebar revelation that the oppression of the poor by the rich has been registered with the Lord of hosts. Third, James adds to the descriptions of vv. 2–3 two more images of the lifestyle of the rich (5:5) and lets rise to the surface the undercurrent of what he has been saying: they are oppressors (5:6).

7.2.1. The Opening Warning (5:1)

James begins with a prophet’s attention-grabbing “Come now.”77 It is arresting, even if not as jarring as the first usage of the expression in 4:13. There James addressed those who were making claims about their business ventures; here he broadens the audience to “you rich people.”78 The expression, at some levels so central to James, carries a heavy load in the debate about James’s audience here and whether or not they are messianists. Some of this I have already discussed in the Introduction and at 1:9–11, and indirectly elsewhere, but one thing is clear: if one is suspicious that 4:13–17 might not be addressed to the believing messianic community, then 5:1–6 raises the suspicions much higher.79 There is nothing in this passage that indicates that the “rich people” are messianists. We recall our observation that the tendency to read letters written by Christians as addressing only Christians is an unnecessary entailment of how Christians have learned to read the Bible canonically and for applications in life. If James picked a model for his letter, it was not Paul; instead, his letter, especially 4:13–5:6, sounds more like a prophetic remonstrance with a variety of groups than like a pastoral letter to pious Christians huddled into a corner waiting for the coming of the Lord. Once we shed this unnecessary burden of thinking the audience must be entirely Christian, we become more open to weighing here and there the audience in a different set of scales. James uses the language “rich people” very much the way Jesus did: it is “code” for the oppressors of the messianic community, and the letter speaks not only to the messianists but also to those who oppress them.80 Whether or not the oppressors were paying attention is of minimal concern, for that is the way Jews of that time wrote.81 In sociological terms, for James and the messianic community “you rich people” are effectively labeled here as “the other.”82

James summons “you rich people” to hear these words: “weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you.”83 The language is dramatic, if not overcooked, because he is calling them to something they cannot manufacture apart from an act of God’s grace. The wealthy, who are called to humiliate themselves in 1:9–11, are here called to intense misery and violent grief, something they cannot attain until they come to the end of their ways—and there is precious little in 5:1–6 to indicate that they will. Rhetorically, then, the language is designed to mark the rich farmers off as oppressors and under the imminent judgment of God, at which time they will “weep and wail.” The language of weeping emerges in the New Testament frequently after and in response to (most often earthly) disaster (Matt 2:18; 26:75; Mark 5:38–39; Luke 6:21, 25; John 11:33; 20:11, 13, 15; Rev 18:9, 11, 15, 19). Wailing occurs sometimes in the context of repentance (Luke 7:38) and at the prospect of judgment, as when Jesus wept over the prospects of what would happen to Jerusalem (Luke 19:41; cf. Luke 23:28; Acts 21:13). Pertinent here is James 4:9: “Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection.” Here we should think of James summoning the rich to weep violently over what was yet to happen to them, as the next phrase indicates: “for the miseries that are coming to you.”

“Wail” evokes the language of the prophets, as in Isaiah 13:6; Zechariah 11:2; Amos 8:3; and Lamentations 1:1–2 (see also Isa 14:31; 15:1–3; 16:7; 65:14; Jer 9:1; 13:17; Ezek 21:12). Before James even uses the word “day,” as he will in 5:3, his readers recognize that he is warning of the Day of the Lord.84 Before he gets to that word he simply speaks of “the miseries that are coming to you.”85 In 4:9 James used the verb cognate for “miseries” (talaipōria), addressing the teachers as part of his variegated summons to repentance.86 Coming as he does out of a Jewish prophetic world, now with “miseries” James would have in mind at least something on the order of the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, associations with passages like Joel 1:5–11 would come to mind for those who knew the history of Jewish prophecy.

The judgment about to come upon the people is imminent, and evidence suggests this. First, James uses the verb erchomai (“come”)87 and uses it in the present tense, which makes the scene vivid. Second, 5:7–8 will indicate that “the coming of the Lord is near.” That verb was commonly used of judgment “coming upon” sinners from the hand of God, especially where the “Day of the Lord” was mentioned (Luke 21:26; Acts 13:40).88 The words of Zophar in the Septuagint of Job 20:28 illustrate the use of this term: “The possessions of his house will be taken away completely when the day of wrath comes to him.”89

7.2.2. The Lifestyle of the Rich Farmers (5:2–3)

5:2 Instead of a direct warning, which James rhetorically suspends until the end of v. 3 (and even then states somewhat indirectly), James simply brings to mind that the riches of the rich are impermanent. He lists three kinds of possessions that do not last: riches and clothes and money (gold and silver). Three terms for consumption accompany the possessions: rotted, moth-eaten, and rusted. The last term is used to shift from the impermanence of possessions to the use of the rusted remains as evidence against the rich on the Day of the Lord. That, James says with sarcasm, is their “treasure.”

“Your riches have rotted”90 involves a verb in the perfect tense, indicating that the author depicts the act of rotting as complete and as having brought into being a state of affairs.91 One might easily infer that this rotting has not yet happened and therefore question why the rhetoric finds such strong semantic expression in the perfect tense. Most, therefore, would call this a “prophetic” perfect, and the future tenses at the end of 5:3, which parallel the perfect tenses of 5:2, support such a view.92 But there is a difference between a perfect and a future tense, with the former emphasizing a state of affairs and the latter expectation. In James’s mind, therefore, the rotting of riches is a condition he assumes, not the least because they have not been used compassionately, and this is the condition to which he speaks.93 The “riches”94 are most likely not distinguished from clothes and gold and silver but are instead the encompassing category of which the clothing and money are but examples. As in 5:1, “riches” signifies not simply possessions but also how one has acquired them, what one does with them, and what one does to those in need (2:1–4, 5–7, 14–17; 5:4–6).

The first concrete instantiation of the rotting of their riches is that “your clothes are moth-eaten.”95 The statement evokes a similar saying of Jesus in Matthew 6:19: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,” and these lines from Job 13:28: “One wastes away like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-eaten.”96 Moth-eaten clothing is an image of impermanence and, in this context, of the impermanence of the focused investment of the rich and their attention to their appearance. Extravagant, status-expressing dress marked the rich (Jas 2:2–3). It is possible that the warning of Isaiah 51:8 lurks behind the words of James:

For the moth will eat them up like a garment,

and the worm will eat them like wool;

but my deliverance will be forever,

and my salvation to all generations.

5:3 The second instantiation of the rotting of riches concerns money: “Your gold and silver have rusted.”97 A common Jewish monotheistic critique of idols was that they waste away, and Baruch 6:11 uses similar language to James 5:2–3 for the idols of Babylon: “They deck their gods out with garments like human beings—these gods of silver and gold and wood that cannot save themselves from rust and corrosion.” The word translated “rust,” Greek ios,98 sometimes means poison (e.g., Ps 140:3) but here it refers to decay of metals, including the partial oxidation of gold and silver (Bar 6:24; Ezek 24:6, 11, 12), especially as a disclosure of false metals. James has in mind, then, the false claims of the rich, which will be exposed in the judgment. The theme is typical of Jesus as well: cf. Matt 6:19–34.

The concrete instantiations are now complete; James next deconstructs the farmers’ obsession with riches: “their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days.” The very thing they focused on, riches like clothing and gold and silver, will turn against the rich in a final act of cosmic betrayal. The rust on them will become a witness to the idolatrous commitment to mammon on the part of the rich. How it will do so is not clear, but perhaps it is because the rich hold these possessions in abundance instead of using them compassionately for those in need that James can say that they will become evidence.99 The Greek expression eis martyrion at face value means “unto a witness,” but context often clarifies the witness as either negative or positive. Thus, after healing a leper Jesus told the man to go to the priestly authority, show him his body, and make the appropriate sacrificial offerings “as a testimony to them [the priests]” that he was now clean (Mark 1:44). But frequently the context is negative. Thus, the twelve apostles were to shake the local dust off their feet where they were not welcomed “as a testimony against them” (Mark 6:11). James has this latter sense in mind when he thinks of the rust witnessing on the Day of the Lord.100

James now asks rust to do what it does not do except in the world of apocalyptic imagination: “and it will eat your flesh like fire.”101 Rust does not eat, and it does not eat like fire, since fire consumes quickly, but James’s evocative imagery is spoiled by thinking of it with such narrow literalism. If rust can corrode precious metals like gold and silver, which were sometimes considered non-corrodible, it will also corrode the very flesh of the rich.102 And if it can corrode, it can be extended to consuming things the way fire does. The language again is graphic and designed to evoke a response of repentance. Flesh eaten away images death, perhaps even eternal death (cf. 1:14–15). Perhaps by “flesh” James simply means the body (cf. 3:6); it is possible he has in mind something on the order of Paul’s use of “flesh” for the unspiritual and unredeemed human in his or her bodily existence. By adding “like fire”103 James intends an image of total destruction: all to be found after a fire is only charred remains. In 3:5–6 fire was not only destructive but its source was hell. It is a stretch to think that that is on James’s mind here, though it could be. Instead, the focus here is the fact of destruction: the rich themselves will be destroyed the way fire destroys what it burns. Once again, the language emerges from a strong biblical tradition that connects God’s judgment with fire (Isa 30:27, 30; Jer 5:14; Ezek 15:7; Amos 1:12, 14; Jdth 16:17). We find a similar use of “fire” with Jesus (Mark 9:47–48; Matt 13:42). The Apocalypse, where “fire” is used no fewer than twenty-five times, cannot be forgotten in this context either (e.g., Rev 8:5; 14:10; 18:8).

Before his appeal to the rich, James clarifies what he is saying: “You have laid up treasure for the last days.”104 James seems at times to be in direct dialogue with Jesus, even offering midrashes rooted in the teachings of Jesus. Here one thinks again of Matthew 6:19–20: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.” James extends this subtly: instead of doing what Jesus commanded, the rich are doing what Jesus prohibited. They are storing up treasures, false ones to be sure, for the Day of the Lord. The focus here is less on the leisurely, devil-may-care approach to life that one finds, for instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) and more on the object of the affections of the rich: riches.105 James’s language is ironic if not sarcastic: what is being treasured up is not a treasure that will survive divine scrutiny in the judgment; instead it is a treasure that will, like Satan, be their accusers.

Peter Davids, though, wonders if this interpretation of “last days” is too specific. He judges rightly that New Testament eschatology is best described as inaugurated, as in texts like Mark 1:15; Acts 2:17; or Hebrews 1:2, and concludes that by “last days” James means “the NT conviction that the end times, the age of consummation, had already broken in upon the world.” Therefore, he says, “These people had treasured up as if they would live and the world would go on forever, but the end times, in which they have a last chance to repent and put their goods to righteous uses, are already upon them.”106 Davids is correct with regard to inaugurated eschatology, and his sense of imminence in James is properly accounted for, but he lays too much stress on the realized dimensions of the kingdom and not enough on the apocalyptic and catastrophic experience of the yet-future judgment, the Day of the Lord, that finds expression in the images of James 5:1–6. A closer look at the early Christian evidence for this expression helps.107 Indeed, there is a sense in which the advent of Jesus as Messiah is the dawning of the last days (Acts 2:16–17; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26). But the early Christian vision entailed not only an inauguration but a “now but not yet” sense that the (final) end was yet to come (2 Tim 3:1; 1 John 2:18; 2 Pet 3:1–4; Jude 18). The emphasis of James in 5:1–6 is not on the realization of the kingdom in the here and now but on the prospect—observe the future tenses of 5:3—of an imminent judgment that will undo injustice and judge the unjust but also establish justice.

7.2.3. A Revelation (5:4)

By now a reader of James may be forgiven for being as weary as the commentator in having to explain the logical movements of the book. From the substance of 5:4 one can infer that James now informs the rich, even if they are not listening, that their oppressive behaviors against the poor have now entered the ears of the God of hosts. The substance, in other words, provides what we need to know about the logical movement: from descriptions of the impermanence of riches, to the implication of the sustained affections of those who pursue riches, to a revelation in v. 4. This revelation is designed rhetorically to awaken the rich from their immoral slumbering by appealing to an Old Testament trope—the unjust actions of the powerful rich, the oppression of the poor, the prayers of the poor to God for justice, the ears of God hearing the prayers, and God acting to judge oppressors and liberate the oppressed.108 The language roots us in Moses’ choice of violence as well as the exodus event and all its many variations throughout Israel’s history, not the least of which are Acts 7:23–29, 35 and Hebrews 11:24–28.109 Thus, after Moses slays the Egyptian (Exod 2:11–14), we read Exodus 2:23b–25:

The Israelites groaned under their slavery, and cried out. Out of the slavery their cry for help rose up to God. God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God looked upon the Israelites, and God took notice of them.

One suspects that such a contrast, the violence of Pharaoh and the people’s cry to God for liberation, forms some of the backdrop to James’s warnings about the need to resist the attractiveness of violence and his confidence that God will hear the cries of the oppressed.

5:4a The alarm James rings in the ears of the rich opens up with a loud imperative: “Listen!” or possibly “Remember!”110 The tenses used open a window on the rhetoric of James: “The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out [present], and the cries of the harvesters have reached [perfect] the ears of the Lord of hosts.” The present tense, now frequently called the imperfective aspect, is used to depict action that is not complete, while the perfect tense (perfective or stative aspect) is used to depict action that is complete and has led to an existing state of affairs.111 The state of affairs is that God has heard; the cries of the oppressed, however, are not yet completed—they are going on as the readers listen.

The oppressed, who may well be the poor of 1:9–11, have labored to earn wages: “the wages of the laborers.”112 The graphic realities of day laborers appear in the parables of Jesus, as do the themes of injustice, generosity, and final vindication (e.g., Matt 20:1–16). The labor involved is mowing fields, that is, harvesting grain.113

But the rich farmers have defrauded the workers of their rightful wages: “which you kept back by fraud.”114 Here we encounter a typical accusation against the rich because, and our society is no different, it is a typical behavior. Laws were written to protect the poor from such behavior. Hence, Leviticus 19:13: “You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning.” Or Deuteronomy 24:15: “You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt.”115 One of Jesus’ parables describes the norm: “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay’” (Matt 20:8). So, there were prophetic warnings against the oppression of withholding wages. Thus, Jeremiah 22:13:

Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness,

and his upper rooms by injustice;

who makes his neighbors work for nothing,

and does not give them their wages.116

Sirach’s language is strong: “To take away a neighbor’s living is to commit murder” (Sir 34:26 [LXX 34:22]). And the wealthy could examine their hearts on this matter, as we find in Testament of Job 12:4: “Nor did I allow the wage earner’s pay to remain at home with me in my house.” So the poor, or their wages, are crying out to God.117

The theme of the oppressed crying out, which, as indicated above, evokes the children of Israel in Egypt, appears first in the primeval story of Cain and Abel, whose blood cried out to God for justice (Gen 4:10),118 and then later in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:20; 19:13). Injustice leads to a cry for help and justice as the oppressed appeal to God (1 Sam 9:16; Isa 5:7; Sir 21:5; 35:17; 1QH 13:12; 4Q381 fragment 24ab 8).

5:4b If the cry of the oppressed forms the first part of this revelation, the second is that God hears these cries, as James both repeats what he has said and extends his thoughts into the heavenly court: “and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.” The verb “cry” (krazō) in the first part of the revelation is replaced now by the noun “cry,” boē, conforming this text to the formative words of Exodus 2:23, where the Septuagint uses cognates of boē.119 Instead of “laborers” in this substantive repeat of 4:a, James uses “harvesters.”120 Most importantly, the cries of the oppressed harvesters “have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.”121

Just why James speaks here of “the Lord of hosts” is not entirely clear. The language evokes the Warrior God tradition of ancient Israel, and one thinks first of a text like David’s words to Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:45: “You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name of the YHWH of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.” Here in James the hosts are probably the heavenly retinue (Ps 103:21). As the covenant formula promises that YHWH will be Israel’s God, so YHWH of hosts has chosen Israel as his vineyard (Isa 5:5, 7). Even more pertinent to our text, and this language evokes the great and fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah, is that YHWH of hosts brings justice (Isa 5:16, 24, and see Rom 9:29). James’s use of “Lord of hosts” most likely draws on this theme of the God of justice who, along with the heavenly retinue, enacts justice for the oppressed in judgment. The oppressed cry out (Pss 17:1–6; 18:6; 31:2), and the Lord of hosts brings justice—in this context, justice against rich, defrauding employers. Vv. 7–11, where James will counsel the messianic community on what to do in the face of this oppression, make it clear that James uses “Lord of hosts” because he has in mind an imminent act of judgment against the oppressors.

Some have disputed whether his language is real or simply biblical imagery, a fashionable trope that carries meaning without necessarily referring to real fraud.122 In light of 1:9–11, the concrete descriptions in 2:1–7, 14–17, and the business pursuits of 4:13–17, it is hard to think of anything other than a plain reality when James accuses the rich of fraud, even if he uses stock language from the Old Testament. The same texts in the letter inform us of the likely protest on the part of the poor as they implore God out of their helplessness to intervene to establish justice. Simple reality might also best explain why James speaks against violence (1:20) and murder (4:2). The theme of patience that quickly follows in 5:7–11 is a logical corollary of learning to wait on God to establish justice instead of relying on one’s own violent measures.

7.2.4. The Description of the Rich Resumed (5:5–6)

James opened the window to the divine perspective on what was happening in v. 4, but now he will resume the description of the rich oppressors that occupied his attention in vv. 2–3. The end of 5:3, in the heated if not sarcastic words “You have laid up treasure for the last days,” is heightened in 5:5–6, and I here give an edited version of the NRSV:

You have lived on the earth in luxury,

and you have indulged yourselves;

you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

You have condemned and

You have murdered the righteous one

(who does not resist you).

Seeing this visibly in lines preserves the staccato form of the words: five accusing descriptions in the second person plural; five constative aorists, designed solely to keep the whole action in front of the reader’s eyes. The first three are substantively similar but the fourth and fifth develop something new, that is, we encounter here luxury (5:5) and violence (5:6).

7.2.4.1. Luxury (5:5)

James gives three descriptions of luxury: “you have lived in luxury” (tryphaō), “you indulged yourselves” (spatalaō), and “you have fattened” (trephō). One is reminded of Petronius’s Satyricon, with its famous opulent and debauched feast of Trimalchio, or one can find any number of descriptions of opulent lifestyles or events in the ancient Mediterranean. There is nothing distinctively Greek, Roman, Jewish, or Alexandrian about this description, and we read it most accurately if we leave it as a general description. There is a subtle deconstructive commentary in this piling up of verbs in the phrase “on the earth.”123 This fits with other expressions for this life in the letter, not the least of which are “body” (2:16, 26; 3:2, 3, 6) and “flesh” (5:3). It is not clear that James has in mind here a vertical dualism of earth versus heaven, and it is at least as likely, if not probable, that he has in mind a temporal dualism of this earth/now versus the age to come (cf. 5:7–11).

During their “now” the rich, opulent, and violent have reveled in luxury, luxuriated in opulence, and fattened their hearts.124 Bounty is not necessarily bad; the deuteronomic theology of blessing finds itself in words like these (cf. Neh 9:25; Isa 66:11). But in this context the words, because the actions occur on the backs of the defrauded poor, denote the accumulation of good and pleasures as a result of unloving, sinful pursuits (cf. Ezek 16:49; Josephus, Ant. 2:201; 1 Tim 5:6; Barnabas 10:3). In the next century, Hermas will tell a parable to this effect (Similitude 64.1.4). Perhaps Hermas’s explanations of luxury had the same impact as C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters do in our day:

“The one who lives in luxury and deception for one day and does what he wants has clothed himself in much foolishness and does not understand what he is doing, for on the next day he forgets what he did the day before. For luxury and deception have no memories, because of the foolishness with which they are clothed. But when punishment and torment cling to a man for a single day, he is punished and tormented for a year, for punishment and torment have long memories. So, being punished and tormented for a whole year, he then remembers the luxury and deceit and realizes that he is suffering these evils because of them. Every man, therefore, who lives in luxury and deception is tormented in this way, because even though they have life, they have handed themselves over to death.” “Sir,” I said, “what kinds of luxuries are harmful?” “Everything a man enjoys doing,” he said, “is a luxury for him. For even the ill-tempered man indulges himself when he gives free rein to his passion. And the adulterer and the drunkard and the slanderer and the liar and the anxious and the robber and the one who does things such as these each gives free rein to his own sickness; he indulges himself, therefore, by his action” (Similitude 65:3–5).

“You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter” recalls 5:3’s “You have laid up treasure for the last days.” 5:1–6 is laced up with the theme of the threat of judgment: “miseries that are coming to you” (5:1), the perfect tenses of 5:2 and futures of 5:3, the certain threat of judgment at the end of 5:3, the cries of the defrauded heard by the Lord of hosts in 5:4, and now the “day of slaughter.” Both judgment and especially the Day of the Lord are sometimes called a “slaughter” by the prophets (Obad 10; Zech 11:4, 7; Isa 30:25; 34:2, 6; 53:7;125 65:12; Jer 12:3; 15:3; 19:6; 25:34; 48:15; 50:27; 51:40; Ezek 7:14–23; 21:15; cf. Rev 19:17–21).126 And the Jewish apocalypses often combine warnings about riches and the final judgment.127 For example,

Now therefore, my children, live in patience and meekness for the number of your days, so that you may inherit the endless age that is coming. And every assault and every wound and burn and every evil word, if they happen to you on account of the LORD, endure them.… Let each one of you put up with the loss of his gold and silver on account of a brother, so that he may receive a full treasury in that age. Widows and orphans and foreigners do not distress, so that God’s anger does not come upon you (2 Enoch 50:2–6).

In light of what will be said below, it is more likely that James is referring here to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD than to the final assize, though the former is a foretaste of the latter. His language traffics in the all-too-typical warnings to Israel and her corrupt leaders that Jerusalem will be sacked if they do not turn from corruption. James warns the rich and opulent, and violent in the next verse, that they will experience the rough side of God’s tongue on the Day of the Lord.128

7.2.4.2. Violence (5:6)

The first verb of this verse, “You have condemned,”129 recalls 2:6–7, where it is said that the rich haul poor messianists into court and deal them injustice. The language is from the courtroom; it describes abuse of power against the powerless with the intent to increase wealth and power. But the image of the powerful oppressing the powerless is so common that we should not assume that it refers to a literal courtroom. Perhaps the general descriptions of wicked injustices, as in Psalm 10 or Wisdom 2:10–20, describe the context of James’s “condemned” the best.130 Thus, Psalm 10 has lines like these:

They sit in ambush in the villages;

in hiding places they murder the innocent.

Their eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;

they lurk in secret like a lion in its covert;

they lurk that they may seize the poor;

they seize the poor and drag them off in their net.

They stoop, they crouch,

and the helpless fall by their might (vv. 8–10).

1 Enoch 96:8 has a striking parallel to our passage:

Woe unto you, O powerful people!

You who coerce the righteous with your power,

the day of your destruction is coming!

In those days, at the time of your condemnation,

many and good days shall come for the righteous ones.

The first verb of this verse (“condemn”) describes legal violence and the second physical violence. It is highly likely, though, that they are used together of legal abuse that leads to physical violence, even murder.131 This first (katadikazō) describes justice deconstructed, such as corrupt policemen and conniving lawyers.132 It not only unleashes more injustices but sets the balance of society on edge. The second verb is “and [you have] murdered.”133 Three times James brings up murder (2:11; 4:2 and here), and in each instance the tendency has been for interpreters to minimize its meaning. These texts, combined as they need to be with 1:20 and 2:1–7, lead me to think that actual murders were occurring among those to whom James wrote.

But this brings us once again face to face with the intended audience of the letter. The best explanation, one that has unfolded in this commentary, is that James writes to messianic communities that are embedded in Jewish communities, with boundary lines that are simply not clear. Some in the crosshairs of James, so we think the evidence suggests, are violent. It also appears that they are leaders at some level, for they have enough influence to shape who sits where in the synagogue and can dominate the courtroom. I lean toward the view that these violent people are not messianists, though that is far from clear. Injustices and violence have been part and parcel of Israel’s history, and it is found in all the circles of power in the world, as described in Amos 5:11–12; Isaiah 3:14–15; and Micah 2:1–2.134 What we deplore today we cannot dismiss from yesterday. The evidence at least suggests that murderous violence emerged in the messianic community. Perhaps our memory of murderous events among God’s people has been tainted by our good intentions, current situations, and resolute hopes.

The second verb of this verse, and the last in the series of five descriptive accusations against the rich, opens up a series of debates, particularly concerning the identity of “the righteous one.” The most common view, the representative view, thinks the “righteous one” stands for anyone who is righteous, that is, anyone who does God’s will. One can appeal to well-known descriptions like those in Psalm 1 or Psalm 37.135 That the label “righteous one” could apply to the obedient and compassionate in the messianic community is established by the attention James gives to the importance of righteousness (1:20; 3:18) and to a true understanding of justification (2:21, 23, 24–25) as well as by his use of this label in 5:16 for messianists.

A second view is that “the righteous one” is James, the Christian leader who is behind this book and who was later called “the righteous [one].”136 The reason for this suggestion emerges from considering the near titular or semi-official expression “the righteous one.” This view is tied into the question of the letter’s authorship, though one could maintain that it came indirectly from the brother of Jesus and was composed after his death on the basis of notes from his sermons and addresses. In that case “the righteous one” would be a subtle allusion to James that only the author(s) and readers would recognize. What gives this view support, besides the tricky matter of confidence in one’s dating of the letter, are the words of Hegesippus and Eusebius. This evidence, explained more completely in the Introduction, establishes that “the righteous one” could refer to James the Just if one also concludes that the text (or at least this verse) was composed after the death of James.137 In describing the various accounts and traditions about the death of James the brother of Jesus, Eusebius says things like this: “… since he was by all men believed to be the most righteous …” and “He was called the ‘Just’ [or ‘Righteous’] by all men from the Lord’s time to ours …” and “So from his excessive righteousness he was called the Just.”

Others, however, go further to point out that the noun is not only singular but also messianic and refers to Jesus Christ, who is on three occasions in the New Testament called “the Righteous One” (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14).138 In addition, other texts describe Jesus as righteous (Matt 27:24; Luke 23:47; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29; 3:7). 1 Enoch 38:2 (see also 53:6) calls the Messiah “the Righteous One”:

… and when the Righteous One shall appear before the face of the righteous, those elect ones, … he shall reveal light to the righteous and the elect who dwell upon the earth, where will the dwelling of the sinners be, and where the resting place of those who denied the name of the Lord of the Spirits?

Qumran seems to run in the same circles:

You alone have [creat]ed the righteous one, and from the womb You established him to give heed to Your covenant … (1QH^a 7:14–15).139

Some early Christian texts give support to the messianic reading of James 5:6. Thus, relying on the Septuagint of Isaiah 3:9–10, Barnabas says, “Let us bind the righteous one, because he is troublesome to us” (6:7).140 What most impresses about this evidence, and that in the notes, is the unjust death of the “righteous one.” Other New Testament texts also come to mind when one interprets this text as referring to Jesus, not the least of which is the statement of Peter in Acts 2:36: “God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”141

There is, then, evidence for each view, and “You have condemned and murdered” can be accounted for by each. If one sees here martyrs for following Jesus, one can support the representative view. The evidence for the hideous murder of James, however much disputed in details, could give rise to the language of James 5:6, and the appropriateness of the same verse for describing Jesus is obvious. Is any of the options more probable than the others?

Perhaps the last clause of the sentence can help. The NRSV smoothes out terseness of the grammar with “who does not resist you” and takes a stand for the syntax being a simple indicative statement when it could be an interrogative that anticipates an affirmation: “Does he not oppose you? Yes, in fact he does.”142 It is here, so I think, that we find the clue that eliminates both the second and the third view of “the righteous one.” The sudden shift from aorists to a present tense reminds the careful reader of 5:1–6 of the similar shift to a present tense in 5:4: “cry out.”143 There those who are crying out are the poor oppressed, those who are following Jesus and doing the will of God, in other words the righteous. Thus, the tense shift connects the actor/subject of “does not resist” to those crying out in 5:4 and supports the representative view. James is speaking here of the one or the ones who have died for their faith and are now interceding with God for justice on earth. While this evidence is hardly the kind that produces certitude, it is my belief that James has sketched a scene in 5:1–6 in which all kinds of actions are seen in their totality (aorists) or as describing a state of affairs (perfects) or as incomplete but certain (futures), but only one that is, as it were, occurring now (presents). It is the action of the poor, the Anawim, who are crying out before the Lord of Hosts and who are “resisting” the rich by that very action. But this view assumes that the clause is interrogative.

It is not impossible that James is a pacifist144 and that he suggests here that those who were condemned and murdered by the rich did not resist them because, as 2:1–7 implies, they were powerless. One thinks then of formative texts like Isaiah 53:7–8 or Matthew 5:39 or even 1 Peter 2:20. But it is just as likely that the alteration to a present tense is not only a signal of a connection back to “cry out” in 5:4 but also one that points to a rhetorical twist to the end of this otherwise brutal set of words, a twist that leads to a question with the assumption that the poor are resisting injustice with protests.145 The scene in Revelation 6:9–11 describes the very point James seems to be making, again with an interrogative as the oppressed cry out to God “How long?” This supports the view that James 5:6 ends not with an indicative but with an interrogative: “Does not that righteous person resist you [as proof that what you are doing is unjust]?”

We have no idea how the rich responded to this series of accusations by James. And, while we also do not know how the messianic community responded, we can assume that the poor heard these words as good news. What we do know is that James now turns to the messianic community and counsels them on how to deal with the oppressions they are experiencing.

7.3. The Messianic Community’s Response to the Wealthy (5:7–11)

7Be patient, therefore,146 beloved,a until the coming of the Lord. Theb farmer waits for the preciousc crop from the earth,d being patient with it147 until it receives148 the early and the late rains.e149 8You also must be patient. Strengthen your heartsf for the coming of the Lord is near. 9Beloved,a150 do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged.g See,h the Judge is standing at the doors!i 10As an example of suffering and patience,j151 beloved,a take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.152 11Indeedk we calll blessed153 those who showed154 endurance.m You have heard of the endurancen of Job, and you have seen155 the purpose156 of the Lord,o how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.p

The tone of the rhetoric finds a new, pastoral level. From “you who say” and “you rich,” the operative word is now “beloved” (NRSV) or “brothers and sisters” (TNIV). James shifts from rich merchants (4:13–17) and oppressive rich farmers (5:1–6) to the beloved community (5:7–11), who have been oppressed by the merchants and farmers. Instead of a singular focus on “you,” we have in 5:7–11 also an inclusive “we” in 5:11. Furthermore, the tone shifts from “the Lord of hosts” to the “compassionate and merciful” Lord in 5:11. In that tone we find the clue both to the audience and to the intent: James has shifted his eyes from the rich oppressors in the community to the faithful followers of Jesus. 5:7–11 explains how James thinks the messianic community should respond to the oppressing rich, essentially that they should wait for the coming of the Lord, that is, for the Day of the Lord when God judges the oppressors and sets the world to rights.

There are extensive discussions of both the length of the ending of James and how 5:7–11 fits into the letter.157 We take the latter as a third part of 4:13–5:11,158 but not all agree. As an example, Luke Timothy Johnson sees these verses as a hinge between 4:11–5:6 and 5:12–20.159 Hubert Frankemölle, on the other hand, argues that 5:7–20 is the epilogue (peroratio) that answers the prologue (1:2–18, the exordium) as James makes use of ancient classical rhetoric.160 The fatal flaw here is that it is unclear that James has intentionally made use of this specific form of Greek or Roman rhetoric. That parallels in ancient rhetoric can be found is above reason; that James purposefully modeled his letter on a genre of ancient rhetoric is not yet proven. Ben Witherington, who has exploited his knowledge of ancient rhetoric in commentaries on every book of the New Testament, after discussing the various rhetorical models of van der Westhuizen, Watson, and Thurén, concludes that James “appears to be deliberative rhetoric.”161 It is the word “appears” that leaves me less than confident that we can know of a rhetorical genre at work in James.

More importantly, as we will seek to show below, 5:12–20 does not form as tidy a summing up of the letter as some argue, and many argue that it does by appealing to big picture themes, like eschatology and community. A closer look shows that what we have in those final verses is three new topics: swearing, healing, and restoring a wandering sinner. James has brought up speech patterns, but has not said a word about swearing; he has said nothing about healing; and the ending of the letter on the note of rescuing wandering sinners is a surprise. The tidiness of the models we find for the rhetorical structure of James might convince some at the level of hints of general themes, but closer inspection reveals that James—as we have seen elsewhere in this letter—is not as tidy as we might like.162 Tidying up James for him by filling in the lines with rhetorical theory gets in the way of reading the text in the broken staccato-like method James himself uses. It at least imposes on James categories that this reader does not see.

James does not proceed in this letter in a steady neat line of logic, and 5:7 opens a section that is unified in theme but unpredictable in flow. A first exhortation to patience (5:7a) is followed by an illustrative example that defines the meaning of patience (5:7b). The second exhortation to patience (5:8a) is followed by an exhortation to be strengthened (5:8b) and a reason to be both patient and strong, namely, the imminent coming of the Lord (5:8c). An exhortation against grumbling (5:9a) is followed by a reason for not grumbling: the Judge is at the door (5:9b). Then James gives two examples of patience: the prophets (5:10–11a) and Job (5:11b). James breathes here the same air as Psalm 37 (see particularly vv. 5–13, 23–24, and 34), though what he says cannot be harnessed to the psalm as an exposition of it.

7.3.1. First Exhortation to Patience (5:7)

7.3.1.1. Exhortation (5:7a)

“Therefore” (oun) indicates that James has a basis for his first exhortation, and five possibilities have been suggested for that reason for patience: (1) the eschatological reason:163 the Lord of hosts is about to act against the oppressors, therefore be patient; (2) the judgment reason narrows the eschatological reason:164 the Lord is about to condemn the oppressors; or (3) the intercessory reason: the Lord has heard the resisting cries of the oppressed (v. 6). This third view could be altered by a view of “who does not resist you” not supported above (namely, it speaks of the inability to do anything about oppression), to (4) the piety reason: the pious/righteous do not resist with violence, therefore follow their steps and be patient. Finally, (5) James’s rhetoric is more general in the word “therefore”: his logical inference is drawn from the total picture of God having heard the cries (v. 4) and having decided to act in judgment imminently. Because the points made in 5:7–11 encompass each of these points, it seems preferable to opt for the fifth view and see here a general logical inference.

James commands the messianic community, here designated “beloved” or, as the TNIV translates it, “brothers and sisters.”165 This word is the first indicator of a change in tone. James shifts from the accusatory “you who say” (4:13) and “you rich” (5:1), which were themselves notable shifts from the accusatory but pastorally shaped warnings, commands, and promises in 4:1–12, to the common life of Christian fellowship and unity with “beloved.” As if to make his change of tone clear, James repeats the term in both 5:9 and 5:10 (see also 5:12, 19).

The command to “be patient”166 needs to be tied (vocabularically) to the word “endurance”167 in 5:11. This term, taken in context of 5:1–11, denotes fortitude, steadfastness, and patience in the context of stress, trial, and suffering, as 5:10–11 will make clear (cf. Luke 21:19; Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 1:6; 6:4; 2 Thess 1:4; Heb 10:32–39). Luke Timothy Johnson has observed that “be patient” is a response of a superior to an inferior while “endurance” (hypomonē) expresses the opposite relationship.168 This may be so, and the evidence can be used to support it, but it is hardly a foolproof case. If it is correct, the idea here would of the (superior in divine perspective) poor oppressed putting up with the (inferior in divine perspective) oppressors until the coming of the Lord. The palpability of the theme of reversal would be obvious. There is one major weakness to this view: James seems to use the terms synonymously in our paragraph. Thus, he uses makrothymeō and makrothymia (“be patient,” “patience”) several times in vv. 7–10 and hypomonē (“endurance”) twice in 5:11, where he seems to be alluding to the same thing.169

The simple moral virtue of patience (1 Cor 13:4; 1 Thess 5:14) is not in James’s mind here, nor is the general notion of waiting for God’s promise (Heb 6:15). His thinking is more specific and is shaped by eschatology. He has spoken of the opulence and violence of the rich, the oppression of the poor, the cries of the poor to the Lord of hosts, and confidence that God has heard their cries (4:13–5:6). When we turn to 5:7–11 we encounter an emphasis on patience and perseverance in an eschatological framework: that is, because the Lord is coming soon as Judge, the readers are to be patient. I have argued throughout this commentary that James knows that hotheads in the messianic community are tempted to strike back with violence (1:19–21; 2:11; 4:1–12; 5:6). Once we tie 5:7–11, where God is the Judge, to 5:1–6, where God is about to act in judgment, the meaning of both patience and perseverance is shaped eschatologically to mean the choice to wait for God’s judgment instead of taking matters in one’s own (bloody) hands.170 In addition, it is probably more accurate here to say that James has God’s act of judgment against the oppressors more in view than he does God’s act of delivering the oppressed, as in Hebrews 10:32–39 or 1 Peter 4:12–19,171 though the former would involve the latter. Our passage is in that way more like Romans 12:19–21.

This conclusion somewhat anticipates what we need to examine in the pregnant expression “until the coming of the Lord.”172 It is not possible here to resolve either the exegetical issues nor the endless speculations involved when one begins to discuss particulars about Christian eschatology. The “coming of the Lord” (Greek, parousia tou kuriou) is far too often understood as the “return” of Christ or even as the “rapture” of the church, but parousia means “presence” and “appearing.” Other words would have been used, such as katabasis, if one wanted to describe a descent to earth in a more intentional manner. Because the issues are complex, it is worth our time to examine the use of parousia in the New Testament.

In the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21) only Matthew uses parousia, in vv. 3, 27, 37, and 39. All but the first of those speak of the parousia of “the Son of Man.” In the Olivet Discourse the event looming on the horizon, the answer to the questions Jesus was asked about “When?” and “What will be the sign?” (v. 3), is the destruction of Jerusalem in 66–73 AD. The clinching evidence that these texts speak of something that occurred within one generation of their prediction by Jesus is Matthew 24:29: “Immediately after” can only mean very soon after, and “the suffering of those days” refers to the things Jesus has just described. Furthermore, 24:33–34 does not speak of just “some” things but “all these things” as what will occur within one generation. Therefore, Jesus taught that the parousia would occur within a generation of the moment he spoke and that it had to do with the sacking of Jerusalem as an act of God against the Jewish leaders for their complicity in violence and their rejection of Jesus as God’s Son and message for the nation (cf. Matthew 21–23). The parousia also meant hope and deliverance for Jesus’ followers. So, parousia here refers to the presence of God/Christ in the destruction of Jerusalem and the deliverance of the church from that destruction. To be sure, there are debates about every point mentioned and every verse in Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse, but the reader deserves to know where I stand on these matters, without my turning this commentary into a lengthy commentary on Mark 13 and its parallels.

There is no reason to think that Paul’s use of parousia (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8–9) matches that of Jesus’ translators. In these Pauline texts, the parousia takes its place in a sequence of events. In 1 Thessalonians Paul refers to the Lord’s parousia as a descent (katabainō) for the resurrection of saints (4:16), following which living saints will be snatched into the air “to be with the Lord forever.” Just when this would happen was not clear in Paul’s churches, so he sought to clarify it: it will come suddenly and believers will be ready if they are faithful (5:2, 4). That day will be a day of salvation and wrath (5:9). 1 Corinthians 15:23 more clearly spells out an order of events: (1) the resurrection of Jesus, (2) the resurrection of those who “belong to Christ” at his “coming,” (3) the destruction of the enemies of God and death, (4) the end, when the Son hands the kingdom over to the Father, and (5) the Father’s reign, with the Son in subjection. The “coming” of Christ thus occurs between the resurrection of Christ and the destruction of the enemies. 2 Thessalonians 2 largely confirms these points but adds to them: the “coming” (parousia) is connected to “our being gathered to him” and to the “day of the Lord” (2:1–2). Some thought that this had already occurred and that they had missed it. Paul spells out some order here also: first, a rebellion led by the rebellious one that is now being restrained until, second, the day of the Lord, when the Lord will destroy the lawless one. The references to parousia in Peter and John (2 Pet 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28) confirm what we have seen: just when the parousia will happen has long disturbed Christians, but it will happen and will lead to judgment and deliverance.

What needs to be decided here is where James fits in this spectrum of thinking, and some have fruitfully compared James with these other early Christian voices.173 James may be concerned with the delay of the parousia in his need to inculcate patient nonviolence, but this is far from clear. There is no sign that his readers want to know the time or hour (1 Thess 5:1) or that some have concluded that the parousia will not happen after all (cf. 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Pet 3:3, 4, 9). Instead, James’s focus is on the certainty of the parousia, the hope that it can inculcate, and its apparent imminence.

More particularly, James knows nothing of the rapture-like act of God that we find in Paul, there is nothing in his context that indicates that the coming of the Lord is a descent to earth by Jesus, there is nothing about resurrection or the reign of the Father and Son. To think James means these things one has to assume that what Paul meant by parousia James had to mean—because that is what the supposed early Christian lexicon says. If we take James at his word and add nothing to his words, we discover that he is like Jesus, 2 Peter, and John: the parousia is the act of God on earth in judgment against the disobedient (oppressors) that entails, probably, vindication for the righteous, poor, and obedient. I infer this from the cries of the poor heard by the Lord of hosts (v. 4) who then acts in judgment to establish justice. In 5:8–9 we learn that the parousia of the Lord is “near” and that it is an act of judgment. James here stands closer to Jesus than to Paul on what parousia means. In other words, it most likely refers here to an imminent act of judgment, fulfilled to some degree (I assume) in the destruction of Jerusalem as the act of God (in part) to vindicate the poor messianic community and to judge the rich oppressors of that messianic community.

This interpretation entails rethinking the meaning of “Lord” in “the coming of the Lord.” James sometimes uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus (1:1; 2:1), but he uses it more often for the Father/God (3:9; 4:10; 5:4, 10–11).174 It is common to think that “Lord” in 5:7–8 refers to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ because parousia is used with Christ in Matthew, Paul, Peter, and John. In other words, that is how it appears in what we think was an early Christian lexicon.175 But, the immediate context of 5:4 and 5:10–11 might lead us to think that “Lord” in 5:7–8 means God/Father instead of Jesus Christ. I am inclined to think that the parousia here refers to the manifestation of God’s (the Father’s) righteous judgment and establishment of justice in the destruction of Jerusalem.176 James’s usage, then, is thoroughly Jewish, as in Testament of Judah 22:2: “My rule shall be terminated by men of alien race, until the salvation of Israel comes, until the coming of the God of righteousness, so that Jacob may enjoy tranquility and peace, as well as the nations.”177

An eschatological reading of 5:7 leads to the conclusion that James, once again, is warning the community against violence. He urges them to wait for God to take vengeance (Gen 4:15; Lev 19:18; 26:25; Ps 94:1; Isa 34:8; 61:2), as memorialized in Deuteronomy 32:35:

Vengeance is mine, and recompense,

for the time when their foot shall slip;

because the day of their calamity is at hand,

their doom comes swiftly.

Paul, too, refers to this text (Rom 12:19), and so does Hebrews (10:30). One thinks also of Jesus’ parable of the weeds and wheat, where he urges his hearers not to uproot the weeds lest they rip up the wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43). In James we have already seen this counsel to moderate the temptation to violence (1:19–21; 3:13–18, especially v. 18; 4:1–6). The cries of the poor oppressed have been heard, so James urges the poor to wait patiently for the act of God that will vindicate them. His counsel then is precisely the opposite of the growing influence of the Zealots.178

7.3.1.2. Reason (5:7b)

The poor messianists are urged to be patient until the coming of the Lord for a reason: “The farmer waits for [or ‘expects’] the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it179 until it receives the early and the late rains.”180 James thinks the example he gives is worthy of their attention.181 The farmer’s patience is an analogy to the patience the messianic community needs, but one needs to avoid pressing the details of the analogy, as in parable interpretation,182 beyond their overall intent. I doubt we should find anything special in “precious,” “greatly valued,”183 “crop” (karpon), “from the earth,” or the “early and late rains.”184 Laws stretches the evidence in seeing the farmer not experiencing suffering due to his patient farming as an analogy to the ordinary pressures the community experiences at the hand of the oppressing rich.185 This ignores the clear evidence of persecution in 2:5–7 and 5:1–6, though one cannot be sure if there is any kind of sudden outburst. But this is not to say there is not a core analogy: as the farmer (see 5:4) expects crops but waits patiently for the rains, so the poor are to expect God’s judgment but wait patiently for God to bring that about; as the farmer waits for a “precious crop,” so the poor are to await their reward for obedience; and as the farmer must await the faithfulness of God186 to provide both the early and the late rains, so they are to wait until the coming of the Lord. None of this is fanciful and each element is central to the point James makes in light of 5:1–6.

7.3.2. Second Exhortation to Patience (5:8)

7.3.2.1. Exhortation (5:8a)

James now repeats his exhortation to patience, but this time with some emphasis187 and in light of his analogy: “You must also be patient.” To this James adds a new idea before he gives his second reason for patient endurance: “Strengthen your hearts.”188 The word “strengthen” (Greek, stērizō) is used of fortifying oneself with food (Judg 19:5, 8), and by trusting in the strength of God one’s heart can be fortified and the will made resolute (Ps 57:7; Sir 6:37; cf. 22:16–17). Paul wants to strengthen, or fortify, the Romans with some spiritual gift (1:11), he prays that God will fortify hearts in holiness (1 Thess 3:13), and he is confident that good works fortify the heart (2 Thess 2:17). Not surprisingly, strength of heart comes from grace not food observances (Heb 13:9). When James says he wants the messianists to be strengthened “in your hearts,” he is thinking from the inside out, from the core of their being, both in resolution and confident faith (James 1:26; 3:14; 4:8; 5:5).

7.3.2.2. Reason (5:8b)

Why do they need to be patient and strengthen their hearts? As James puts it, “for the coming of the Lord is near.”189 We concluded above that “the coming of the Lord” refers to the act of God in judgment against the oppressors in the defeat of Jerusalem. But, again, some of this needs to be shown, and this verse and the next will clarify what remains to be demonstrated. Everything here hinges on the meaning of “is near” (Greek ēngiken). The word (engizō), in short order, means “draw near.” It speaks of something so near that its impact is beginning to be felt. The fear that somehow James, and therefore the Word of God, would be wrong if this word is given the meaning one expects it to have has led too many to less than obvious explanations.190 The word is used forty-one times in the New Testament.191 One of the more telling uses is in Mark 11:1 (par. Matt 21:1): “When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples.…” The point is that they were close but not yet there; so close that Jesus sent two disciples on ahead to get things ready. Other uses, such as Matthew 21:34; 26:45–46; Luke 15:25; 18:35; 19:41; 21:8, 20; 22:1 confirm that engizō means to be near, very near, but not yet arrived—but close enough for things to start happening.

What matters in our context is that ēngiken is used for cataclysmic eschatological events in the time-plan of the early Christians. Hence, Jesus can say the kingdom of God has drawn near (Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11). Of note are Luke 21:20: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near,” and 21:28: “Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” From Acts, we read in 7:17: “But as the time drew near for the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham, our people in Egypt increased and multiplied.” Paul says in Romans 13:12: “the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.” And Hebrews 10:25: “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” Peter too: “The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers” (1 Pet 4:7). In addition to these considerations we note that this term emerges at times in the context of oppression and serves to buttress the hope of the oppressed. Thus, Mark 13 speaks often of persecution and how the nearness of the Son of Man’s coming brings hope (Mark 13:26–31). Peter’s words about the end of all things being near immediately lead to encouragement about persecution (1 Pet 4:7–11, 12–19). The so-called roll-call of heroic faith in Hebrews 10 winds up its point in a combination of encouragement and promise that the Lord is coming (10:32–39).

One can read “the coming of the Lord is near” in James 5:8 in the context of Paul’s statements about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and, if ēngiken is understood as referring to something about to happen, then either Jesus did return somehow or James was wrong. Or one can read this text in light of the teachings of Jesus about the parousia in a Jewish context and see it as a prediction of the imminent judgment of God, and in this case one would have to think of the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD as told of so graphically by Josephus in his Jewish War.192 The latter is far more probable, and the next verse tips the balance in its favor. There (5:9b) the parousia has to do with God appearing as Judge. Grammatically speaking, the perfect tense of ēngiken needs to be seen in context: the state of affairs that comes through the perfect tense is that God has heard the cries of the poor (5:4, perfect tense), so the flipside of that hearing is that the “coming near” of the Lord’s parousia is a state of affairs. One might think of “being near” the way a plane might be put into a holding pattern just before it arrives. The Lord’s parousia then mirrors the hearing of the cries of the oppressed as a state of affairs. The Judge’s standing, or hovering, at the doors (5:9b) is another set of affairs sketched in the perfect tense. They need to be tied together: God having heard the cries, the coming near of the parousia, and the approach of God as Judge.

7.3.3. Exhortation about Speech (5:9)

Surprisingly, James turns to an exhortation about speech in 5:9, though it is connected to what precedes because the reason he gives is the imminence of God’s judgment (5:9b). Some suggest that the theme is grounded in the ecclesiological interests of James and more particularly in his focus on the importance of proper speech patterns (1:19–21; 2:1–13; 3:1–12; 4:1–6, 11–12).193 That suggestion, however, creates tension in the text because it would mean that James has interrupted his theme of perseverance (5:7–8) with a new theme (speech patterns, 5:9) only to settle down quickly into the theme of perseverance again (5:10–11). I find this interruption of the theme unlikely. Instead, it is more likely that 5:9’s concern with words fits into the theme of perseverance, addressing a kind of grumbling connected to the readers’ impatience.

7.3.3.1. Exhortation (5:9a)

James addresses the “beloved” or “brothers and sisters”194 to bring them into the circle of fellowship. He commands them: “do not grumble against one another.”195 The verb James chooses, stenazō, is not the more common word used of Israel’s grumbling in the wilderness against God (gongyzō), but the LXX of Exodus 2:23–24 and 6:5 do use stenazō. Jesus sighed about a deaf man who also could not speak well when he prayed for that man’s healing (Mark 7:34). Three Pauline texts use this term for human yearnings for final redemption (Rom 8:22; 2 Cor 5:2, 4). And Hebrews 13:17 exhorts leaders not to sigh over their congregation. What seems most relevant, though, is the use of this term in the Old Testament for the human response of grumbling against both God and fellow Israelites in the context of suffering, as in Job 24:12; Sirach 36:25; Ezek 21:6–7; and Lamentations 1:8, 21.196

One must imagine that the oppressive conditions led to the temptation not only to violence but also to turning against others (and God). Oppression leads to consternation and the yearning desire to find a way out. James knows this so he counsels the messianic community not to let their anger turn to grumbling, wrathful violence, yearning to climb over one another. Interpreters commonly connect “one another” to “brothers [and sisters]” as the messianic fellowship and see the grumbling as directed at others in the fellowship, not at the rich farmers and merchants of 4:13–5:6. This is reasonable, but one must at least leave open the possibility that James did not draw such a deep furrow and that “grumbling against one another” might be another form of violence against the oppressors.197

7.3.3.2. Reason (5:9b)

The reason James’s addressees are not to turn against one another is now made clear: “so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors!”198 These two sentences need to be tied together as indicating the reality of judgment and the imminence of judgment. The reality of judgment is not the reality of there being a judgment at all,199 but the reality of that judgment being enacted against those who choose to grumble against one another. Judgment is both real and vivid for James (2:12; 4:11–12) and is the act of God (2:12–13; 4:11–12). We need to tie this act of God’s judgment against the grumblers as divine vengeance with the human act of condemnation (katadikazō) and murder in 5:6, which we think is lurking in the shadows of what grumbling means in 5:9a. The possibility of judgment, made clear in the aorist subjunctive in “so that you may not be judged,” shifts now to a different certainty in the state of affairs James now describes with the perfect tense. As the state of affairs was that God had heard the cries of the poor (5:4, perfect tense) and that the parousia had drawn near (5:8), so the flipside of that hearing is that God is now “standing at the doors.” What is certain is that God is at the doors; what is potential is that the messianic community might experience the sword if they do not repent. If they choose to grumble against one another, the one standing at the doors will move that potentiality into the divine reality.

The one at the door is the “Judge,”200 the one and only Judge (4:11–12), whose sole prerogative is usurped when humans seek to judge (2:4). Identification of this Judge follows who one thinks “the Lord” is in “the coming of the Lord.” Hence, opinion is divided. Some think it refers to God/Father (4:12) while others think it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10–17; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 3:20).201 Two factors weigh in favor of God/Father in this context: in 4:12 the Lawgiver and Judge is God/Father, and our conclusion that “the coming of the Lord” more than likely referred to God/Father.

What is distinct here is the final expression: “at the doors.”202 The image, not unlike that in Revelation 3:20, is of physical proximity. This sense of imminence or proximity was inherited from Jesus, as seen in Mark 13:29 par. Luke 21:31; Mark 9:1; 13:30; Matthew 10:23, which show that from Jesus onward there was a sense of imminent expectation. But it is the what that creates problems for both theology and faith. Physical proximity here is a trope for temporal imminence. We appeal to the perfect tenses, tie them together, and form a clear image: God has heard the cries, the parousia has drawn near, and the Judge is standing at the doors. The image is one of an imminent act of God that will establish justice and send off the message that the oppressed have been vindicated. I see no reason here to make any of these expressions refer to anything more than an act of God on the plane of history (AD 70) in which the injustices are dealt a fatal blow. The Lord “came” to Jerusalem in judgment in the Roman army. James had in mind the sort of thing the prophets had in mind when the Assyrians and Babylonians entered the city and took it captive (2 Kings 17). Israel experiences this because Israel is the people of God, not because Israel is no longer the people of God.

7.3.4. Third Reason for Patience (5:10–11)

What many take to be an interruption (5:9) in James’s message of eschatological patience (5:7–8) is discovered not to be an interruption of the theme at all. The grumbling he focused on may well have been the temptation of the hotheaded leaders or persons in the messianic community who thought the way to resolve the oppressions of the rich was to pick up a sword and deal with them directly. James warned them that such action would lead to judgment and that the Judge was at the very door. That interpretation of 5:9 then leaves a seamless connection to 5:10–11, where James continues his theme of exhorting the poor messianic community to turn down the tempting invitation to use violence and to rest assured in the confident condition that God has heard their cries and is about to act in judgment. Such a confidence in God as Judge leads to eschatological patience. James now gives two examples of patience: the prophets and Job. Behind it all are the compassion and mercy of God.

7.3.4.1. The Prophets (5:10–11a)

5:10 Without a conjunction James states: “As an example.”203 The use of examples, or a model of orientation,204 was and is rhetorically effective and affective. Jeremiah, to take an example, saw himself as a negative example, a laughingstock (Jer 20:7–9), and Ezekiel spoke of knowing the abominations of the ancestors (20:4). Enoch was an example of repentance (Sir 44:16). Eleazar was a ninety-year-old example of fidelity and a “noble example of how to die” (2 Macc 6:21–31). Jesus left an example in footwashing (John 13:15), and 2 Peter says that Sodom and Gomorrah were an example of what happens to the ungodly (2:6). And we have lengthy lists as in Sirach 44–50’s list of important figures in Israel’s history, 1 Maccabees 2:49–64’s list of the deeds of the ancestors, and Hebrews 11’s list of those who lived the life of faith. A list of examples of zeal and envy as well as nobility can be found in 1 Clement (chs. 4–6), which also urges Christians to “cling” to such examples (46:1; 63:1).

“The prophets” were examples of “suffering and patience.”205 The grammar is perhaps an example of hendiadys, or expressing one thought with two words, but this is not as clear as some suggest. It is wiser to translate: “an example of suffering and patience.”206 That distinction aside, James wants the two terms kept close together because he is speaking here of a patience in suffering or a suffering with patience inasmuch as the two words are virtually combined to form “endurance” (hypomonē) in 5:11.

To which prophets is James referring? He could simply be using the trope of connecting prophets to suffering and persecution (cf. Matt 5:12 and Luke 6:22–23; 11:49; Matt 23:33–39; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15). Or he could have in mind one or more prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel) who either suffered or were understood in tradition to have suffered. Jesus’ words point to a custom of honoring dead and martyred prophets (Matt 23:29–32).207 If a priest represented the people before God, the prophet represented God before the people, and such a calling was multilayered: it involved actions, pathos, speaking, and advising.208 James defines the prophets as those “who spoke in the name of the Lord.”209 Their message brought them suffering, and in that suffering they patiently awaited God’s vindication. Hence, prophets, who are everywhere esteemed and held out as God’s special instruments, are examples for the oppressed poor of the messianic community because, though much esteemed, they, too, suffered.

5:11a Our reading of v. 11a connects it with the prophets in v. 10 as “those who showed endurance” instead of with Job, who emerges in v. 11b, but the matter is far from clear. Three factors cloud the issue: first, James begins with “Indeed,” idou (“behold”), and this word often serves to introduce a new topic or level of argument. In 3:4 it marked the shift from the bit in a horse’s mouth to the rudder of a ship; in 5:4 it intensifies the argument by shifting it to a new level; in 5:7 it particularizes the argument by providing a fresh analogy; and in 5:9 it turns the argument to a new level of seriousness. Second, there is a tense change: 5:10 “take” (labete) is aorist; in 5:11a we have a present tense (“we call blessed”) and in 5:11b we turn back to the aorist (“you have heard”). Third, the term “showed endurance” (hypomeinantas), while clearly overlapping in sense with “patience” (makrothymia), is picked up again in 5:11b with the “endurance” (hypomonē) of Job. For these reasons, then, v. 11a could be taken as a transitional statement that leads to 5:11b. On the other hand, it can also serve to summarize the practical particularities of the theology of 5:10: if one asks what it means to say “As an example … take the prophets … ,” one could not find a better manifestation than “we call blessed” in 5:11a. The use of the present tense then would serve to make the practical significance vivid. Furthermore, “those who showed endurance” is a single-term summary of what “suffering and patience” means. The issue is far from clear, but we think 5:11a functions as a summary statement of 5:10 and, at the same time, prepares the ground for 5:11b.

The Jewish community at large, and we can infer also the messianic community in particular, blessed those who endured: “we call blessed those who showed endurance.”210 If we see the present tense in aspectual terms, that is in terms of depiction of action instead of correspondence to time and reality, and if that aspectual intent is to describe action that is incomplete or “imperfective,” then what is incomplete is the claims of the merchants (4:13), the mist-like nature of their duration (4:14), the “instead of … but” actions of 4:15–16, the knowledge of good and not doing it (4:17), the wailing of the rich farmers and the coming of miseries (5:1), the cries of the harvesters (5:4), the prayerful resistance of the harvesters (5:6), the reception of precious/valuable crops (5:7), the patience of the farmer (5:7), the intended non-grumbling of the messianic community (5:9a), and the blessing of those who endured (5:11a). In James’s mental world, these are the focal elements of his exhortations in 4:13–5:11. My suggestion is that the blessing corresponds to these elements and, in particular, it corresponds with the cries of the oppressed. As the oppressed cry to God, the messianic community blesses those poor who are living faithfully.

Inherent to 5:11a’s “we call blessed” is the macarism in 1:12,211 where the messianic community was promised that endurance, prompted as it is by the steadfast love of God, will lead to reward. Thus, “we call blessed,” in the sense of being blessed by God, also implies “and you will be too if you endure in spite of this oppression.” Matthew 5:11–12 is probably behind both James 1:12 and 5:10–11a, and the text shows substantive parallels:

Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

It is not at all stretching the text to think that James connects the messianic community to that line of prophets in using the prophets as examples for how the messianists are also to endure and show patience in suffering.

Perseverance, the grace and resolution to remain faithful under serious stress, is promised not only happiness but salvation (Dan 12:12; Matt 10:22; 24:13). James cares about perseverance, apparently not in ways that have fascinated theologians, but in the pastoral context of knowing messianists who were asked to run the gauntlet. Thus, James 1:3–4 teaches that tests of faith lead to endurance (hypomonē) and endurance builds maturity; 1:12 teaches that the one who endures (hypomenō) temptation/testing will receive the “crown of life”; and now in the context of severe trial (5:1–6), the messianists are exhorted to take suffering prophets and Job as their example—and to wait for God’s timing in judgment (5:7–11).212 For James perseverance has to do with human will, the building of Christian character, connection to the story of God’s people, and final destiny.

7.3.4.2. Job (5:11b)

“You have heard of the endurance of Job.”213 James finds in Job the quintessential example of patience in suffering or endurance and his example forms a model of how the messianists are to conduct themselves under stress. But why Job? His example is sui generis, an assault by the Satan on God’s playground, and has nothing to do with oppression by the rich. Furthermore, he was not all that patient: “He was anything but an example of a godly person who was patient in the midst of adversity.”214 “The canonical book rather pictures Job as a bit self-righteous, overly insistent on getting an explanation for his unjust sufferings from the Lord.”215 Nor does the standard paradigm, “the patience of Job,” help us. Nor does it help that such a stereotype has led to a complacent theory of patience. Indeed, Job’s story tells us in no uncertain terms that he complained. But any reading of Job reveals a character who stuck it out, who trusted in God, and who did so fully aware of the fundamental injustice he had experienced. Maybe, then, Job is the perfect example for the oppressed poor. Patience here need not be understood as quietude or passivity; perhaps genuine patience involves realities like protesting to God,216 yet without surrendering one’s integrity or one’s faith in God or losing the path of following Jesus.

Some suggest that James brings in Job because Job was seen by some as a prophet. Thus, Sirach 49:9 says “God also mentioned Job who held fast to all the ways of justice” and sandwiches Job between Ezekiel and the Twelve Prophets. Not only is this slender evidence but it is also not the focus of James, who is less concerned with who is a prophet and more with the need to endure.217 Oddly enough, the word “endurance” (hypomonē) only appears once in the Septuagint of Job and then not of Job himself (14:19).218 Perhaps we are to think of a general stereotype of Job as someone who was patient in suffering and who endured. Job is chosen because the story of Job was connected to suffering, patience, and endurance.

It may be that the canonical text of Job does not fit the stereotype James calls on, but perhaps the evidence of the Jewish world suggests that it is the interpreted Job who is an example for James.219 This is a central theme in the Testament of Job, and there are strong parallels between that book (especially 33) and James.220 Thus, in Testament of Job 27:3–7 Satan admits defeat and his words tell the story: “So you also, Job, were the one below and in a plague, but you conquered my wrestling tactics which I brought on you.” And then Job says to his children: “Now then, my children, you also must be patient in everything that happens to you. For patience is better than anything.” That text is almost certainly later than the book of James, but it does reveal that the theme of perseverance was central to the perception of Job in the Jewish and Christian worlds.221

But we should not fall for this generality about patience so easily. Indeed, Job is cast in the Testament of Job in altogether patient terms, but that is not James’s point. He has more in mind with Job; he has in mind the poor oppressed who cry out to God (like Job), who are not to resort to violence, and who will retain their faith and integrity without always falling from their commitments. It is then the combination of Job’s (impatient!) protests along with his steady resolve to stick to what he believes to be true, even if God does not (!), that makes Job the most suitable character in the Bible for what James has to say.

“The purpose of the Lord”222 not only continues the example of Job but provides for James a platform for what he has to say to the oppressed poor in the messianic community. The NRSV might lead some to think James has become abstract when he says “and you have seen223 the purpose of the Lord,” but the term translated “purpose” is telos.224 Patience has been connected to God’s sovereign purposes in 1:2–4, but here telos seems to reflect the “end” of the book of Job, where “the Lord” forgives Job’s friends through Job’s prayers, that is, “the Lord’s end” refers to the merciful resolution of the story of Job and his friends.225 God not only forgives the friends but then also shows mercy to Job by restoring his fortunes. This best explains why James then says “how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.”226

While Job 42:7–17 brings these themes to the fore, they are emphasized even more in the targum of Job from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus 11Q10 [Tg Job] 38:1–9:

[(So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad) the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and] did [what they had been told by] God. And G[o]d listened to the voice of Job and forgave them their sins because of him. Then God turned back to Job in compassion and gave him twice what he once had possessed. There came to Job all his friends, brethren and those who had known him, and they ate bread with him in his house. They consoled him for all the evil that God had brought upon him, and each man gave him one sheep and one gold ring. So God blessed J[ob’s] latt[er days, and h]e [had] [fourteen thousand] sh[eep …]

James here moves in the world of wisdom, as can also be seen in Wisdom 2:16–17 and 3:19.227 But James goes beyond this wisdom conviction that we ought to live now in light of the end, to seeing “the Lord’s end” as days of mercy, restoration, and blessing. Furthermore it is not just the telos of life that James has in mind but the telos of the Lord.

James appeals to the compassion and mercy of God, as he often does (1:5, 17–18, 27; 2:5, 11, 13; 5:4, 6), but he does so again not in the abstract nor casually but to assure the poor oppressed of the community that God can remake all things. As Job lost it all at the hands of the Enemy, and God restored it all in duplicate, so the oppressed poor can count on God’s mercy and God’s goodness that maybe they, too, will find “the Lord’s end” better than the beginning. Surely the appeal to God’s compassion and mercy evoke texts like Exodus 34:6–7, where we find not only mercy for God’s good people but also the warning of judgment on those living in iniquity.